Why life doesn't have to be a pitch

By Simon Longstaff

A version of this article was first published: B&T Weekly - 13 December 2002

Of the many causes of unethical conduct, the most significant is the influence of 'unthinking custom and practice'. You know when its influence is at work whenever people explain what they do by saying either, “... but everyone does it” or “... that's just the way we do things around here!”

If someone offers you this as a reason for doing something – then watch out. Before you know it they will have stumbled into an 'ethical death-trap' – falling in without even the slightest sense that the way ahead could be so dangerous.

The lesson in this is clear – the best defence against the perils of unethical conduct is to keep an open mind – and to make sure that all that you do can be justified by reference to a clearly articulated framework of core values and principles.

The advertising industry has its own fair share of 'ethical death traps' lying in wait for the incautious and 'blind'. These traps are not reserved for 'bad people'. Plenty of good people take a fall – simply because they are operating on autopilot with the result that good people end up doing 'bad' things. Once again, they do not make a deliberate choice to overstep the ethical mark. It just happens because they continue to do those things 'that everybody does'.

So, the challenge for people in advertising (and for people in general) is to engage in the gently subversive act of asking questions designed to reveal the deeper reasons for all manner of things that we otherwise take for granted. It is important that these questions be asked and answered with an open mind – never simply assuming that particular practices will be either rejected or accepted.

So, where might the industry start in its review of established custom and practice? I would propose a re-assessment of the idea of pitching for work. To question the status of 'the pitch' will seem, to some, an act of heresy. After all, pitching for work seems to be built into the fabric of the advertising universe! That is precisely the reason why the idea of pitching needs to be looked at again – its status as a venerable tradition makes it ideal for fresh consideration.

On the face of it, the idea of pitching for work in a competitive environment seems to make sense. On the face of it, pitching seems to be fair – with rival companies able to demonstrate their capacity through the mechanism of head-on competition. Creative juices are made to flow, strategic insight flashes into mind and the seeds of a great campaign are born. Or are they?

One of the criticisms that could be levelled against the idea of pitching is that it induces competition – but for the wrong outcome. It could be said that all that a pitch can possibly reveal is the identification of the agency that is best at pitching. What it may miss, completely, is any sense of which agency is good at advertising. I suppose that it could be argued that there is a necessary connection between being really good at pitching and being really good at advertising – but I must admit that if this is so, then it's not immediately obvious. After all, it is not uncommon for agencies with a reputation for fabulous work to miss out on being selected. Really good people fall by the wayside – as they must – under conditions where there can only be one winner. The suspicion that people good at pitching win pitches must, therefore, remain.

Another criticism of pitching is that the whole process is a gross waste of time and resources for those companies that are unsuccessful. Of course, this criticism could be levelled at the whole process of competitive tendering to which the process of 'pitching' is related. And that would be right. However, rather than concluding that waste of the kind accepted in competitive tendering is a justification for pitching, it may lead to the alternative conclusion – that there are serious issues to be addressed in relation to competitive tendering, as such. I suppose that it could be argued that the expense incurred by those who lose a pitch has some residual value, perhaps as a learning exercise or as an opportunity that energises an agency and helps to consolidate a sense of camaraderie. It might even be argued that the 'adrenalin rush' of competition is worth the price paid to mount a pitch. Yet, surely, there are better and less wasteful ways to achieve these desirable outcomes.

Perhaps the greatest objection to the process of pitching is that winning agencies rarely proceed to apply the campaign developed for the pitch – again raising the central question about the value of the process, itself. Good agencies develop a solid understanding of their client's business and this regularly alters an agency's thinking about strategy, creative content and media. And this is as it should be. However, given all of this, why select an agency after assessing ideas and work that only approximate the final result to be produced?

The likely answer is that the pitch process is, ultimately, a search for and demonstration of potential. However, if this is the real purpose behind pitching, then why not explore other methods better suited to achieving this end? For example, it would seem that one of the most obvious indicators of potential is, with a few exceptions, superior past performance. So, why not adopt a different approach based on an assessment of an agency's capacity (as demonstrated through previous work)? Clients could then assess a portfolio of advertising, meet with the agency principals, do reference checks with clients and on the strength of this, form a view about the capacity of an agency to advance their commercial interests. Having engaged a qualified agency, judged to have the right 'fit", skill set etc, the real work of developing a campaign could begin.

Choosing an agency through the process of a pitch is a bit like choosing an artist on the basis of a single sketch. It just doesn't make sense.

Needless to say there will be hundreds of arguments that people will want to advance in defence of 'the pitch'. Great – let the debate begin. But, please, no one tell me that pitching makes sense because 'everyone does it'.